I hate this TL:DR craze, I don't care if you didn't read, saying it just means that you don't like to read long things, or your lazy, way to go above and beyond to make that known.

I realize religion was created to control, it is probably the least invasive/traumatizing (but not by a whole lot) form of control in the world, it rallies huge swaths of territory under a common goal, and partially contributed to where we are now, both positively and negatively. Also, not sure how that counters anything I said? please clarify what you are saying because it appears that you say anything like "All religion is a system of control" and somehow use that to counter what I am saying. Satanism, from what you have portrayed appears to be a more individualistic self serving ideology, and was rendered primitive and obsolete far before any other religion. I say obsolete, because if I worship the earth, center of all the universe, and then a satellite image shows the earth spinning around the sun, then my religeon is rendered obsolete, similar to how indulgence and self service is rendered obsolete by people living in communal societies.

Last edited by Ringleader on Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

Being as I've only read what you have provided, NT, I do not really have the grounds to say it is either reasonable or ridiculous.

The watchword of Satanism is INDULGENCE instead of "abstinence" . . . BUT - it is not“compulsion“.

Humans can't just go around satisfying their every desire. It doesn't seem like such a bad idea until you look at the effects, not only on yourself but on those around you.

You cannot love everyone; it is ridiculous to think you can. If you love everyone andeverything you lose your natural powers of selection and wind up being a pretty poorjudge of character and quality. If anything is used too freely it loses its true meaning.Therefore, the Satanist believes you should love strongly and completely those whodeserve your love, but never turn the other cheek to your enemy!

What need is there for character judging or enemies when everyone loves everyone?

This "Satanic Bible" seems more like an easy way out of responsibility, and we all know how well that works out in the end.

Last edited by CivBase on Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

The watchword of Satanism is INDULGENCE instead of "abstinence" . . . BUT - it is not“compulsion“.

Humans can't just go around satisfying their every desire. It doesn't seem like such a bad idea until you look at the effects, not only on yourself but on those around you.

exactly, it is a cycle of, do whatever you want, and then control yourself at the same time... where is the logic in this? And how do you expect someone who lives by indulgence to not condition them self to the eventuality of compulsion, it becomes a reflex as any other behavior. In addition to this, indulgence is defined by perception, what Bill Gates considers indulgence is probably different from you do, so the quest for indulgence is a compulsion within itself. The need for more, more power, more anything, isn't exactly something you can control and is definitely not an object of worship or code of life, it is tolerance, and your need to surpass your expectations.

I mean, I don't have anything particularly against indulgence, in fact, I think the only way that humanity can truly progress is if we revert to the stage in which progression occurred in the first place. History is repeating itself so clearly, and so linearly (the US is degrading similar to the Roman Empire), that I think we have reached a stage that we can not progress any further, we reach a pinnacle, and then it becomes swept away by barbarism, barbarism that evolves into a glittering beacon of society and so on. So there is no higher achievable form of life, but there is a lower form of life, if you choose to condition yourself into fulfilling that role.

You know, I'd read this thread and comment, but the people on my side (aside from Rasq) are doing such a poor job of it that it really isn't even worth my time. I'm sure I agree with whatever Rasq says. We've only disagreed once, to my knowledge.

Anyway, Death, Zaki, do yourselves both a favor and...well, dying wouldn't really be a favor to you guys, but maybe self exile? I don't know.

The same to you, NT. You and I have argued the Bible being "incongruent" and I've seen your Bible "knowledge" in action. We both know that if you ever actually did read the Bible, it was a long time ago, and you remember almost nothing and are relying on hearsay from other n00bs on the Internet just to formulate your own arguments. As I recall, you used a passage saying that people are black because their sinners as an example of Biblical hypocrisy, which we all found hilarious at the time, since the closest thing to such a passage actually existing is in an entirely separate religious text.

Rotaretilbo wrote:The same to you, NT. You and I have argued the Bible being "incongruent" and I've seen your Bible "knowledge" in action. We both know that if you ever actually did read the Bible, it was a long time ago, and you remember almost nothing and are relying on hearsay from other n00bs on the Internet just to formulate your own arguments. As I recall, you used a passage saying that people are black because their sinners as an example of Biblical hypocrisy, which we all found hilarious at the time, since the closest thing to such a passage actually existing is in an entirely separate religious text.

the quote was from the Bible. its the metaphorical interpretation that can never be settled on.

but i guess that what makes the Bible the best friend of anyone looking to validate their points, since it can be interpreted so many ways.

Rotaretilbo wrote:The same to you, NT. You and I have argued the Bible being "incongruent" and I've seen your Bible "knowledge" in action. We both know that if you ever actually did read the Bible, it was a long time ago, and you remember almost nothing and are relying on hearsay from other n00bs on the Internet just to formulate your own arguments. As I recall, you used a passage saying that people are black because their sinners as an example of Biblical hypocrisy, which we all found hilarious at the time, since the closest thing to such a passage actually existing is in an entirely separate religious text.

the quote was from the Bible. its the metaphorical interpretation that can never be settled on.

but i guess that what makes the Bible the best friend of anyone looking to validate their points, since it can be interpreted so many ways.

KristallNacht wrote:the quote was from the Bible. its the metaphorical interpretation that can never be settled on.

A passage from the Bible whose reference you could never produce, and that cannot be found anywhere on Google. Were you not paying attention last time we ripped that argument to shreds and laughed at you?

KristallNacht wrote:but i guess that what makes the Bible the best friend of anyone looking to validate their points, since it can be interpreted so many ways.

A claim you make often and support with evidence rarely.

KristallNacht wrote:besides, this isn't supposed to be a Christianity thing at all.

It's about Atheistic Satanism

A pseudo-religion which basically says "Christianity sucks, do whatever you want." Since Half of Atheistic Satanism is about trashing Christianity, I'm pretty sure this is about Christianity.

Gauz wrote:Thats all thats in it.

Seriously, lets not kid ourselves, the Catholic church is full of fucking RETARDS.

Oh, I can do this too.

Organizations based around atheism and humanism are full of fucking RETARDS.

See how easy that was? You know why it isn't a valid argument? I'll give you a hint. It has something to do with a ceiling that has no support columns or other weight-baring structures holding it up. ;)

Half of understanding Atheistic Satanism is understanding what it is. It is essentially the polar opposite of Christianity. It is like a person took the Bible and just added the word "not" to every sentence. Thus, discussing Christianity, which is where Satanism was derived, is perfectly valid.

Further, since Satanism spends so much time trashing Christianity, one of the reasons it would be found ridiculous would be the in its reasoning behind trashing on Christianity. Thus, again, discussing Christianity, which is where Satanism was derived, is perfectly valid.

I find it funny that when someone who actually read your post and knows what Atheistic Satanism fundamentally is comes and tries to argue your points, you try and say that they are irrelevant. Is it because you don't actually have any support for these wild accusations and claims you've been making about Christianity? I've never read the Bible cover to cover all at once (I've read the Bible in that I've read each book, but over the span of several years), and even I know that the single passage you brought up to try and prove that the Bible was incongruent was complete bullshit and can't be found in the Bible! If you've actually read the Bible cover to cover, you should know full well it isn't too.

Thus, you are either purposely lying to further your points by deceiving the misinformed, like Michael Moore, or you are lying about aspects that make you appear credible, and are actually a hypocrite, demanding that we read the entire Book of Satan just to understand a concept like hedonism that has existed for centuries when you yourself have not read anything substantial in a book that you spend so much time fervently bashing.